You are on page 1of 28

10/08/2010

Coupled Axial-Shear-Flexure Interaction Hysteretic


Model for Seismic Response
Assessment of Bridges

Shi-Yu Xu, Ph.D. Student


Jian Zhang, Assistant Professor
Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering
University of California, Los Angeles

Quake Summit 2010

Outline
Introduction

Motivation & Objectives


Shear-Flexure Interaction Under Constant Axial Load

Proposed Axial-Shear-Flexure Interaction (ASFI) Scheme

Primary Curves and Hysteretic Models Considering Combined Actions


Generation of Primary Curve Family
Stress Level Index & Two-stage Loading Approach

Model Verification

Static Cyclic Tests


Comparison with Fiber Section Model under Seismic Loadings
Limitations and Known Issues

Factors Affecting ASFI & Effects on Bridge Responses

Arrival Time of Vertical Ground Motion


Vertical-to-Horizontal PGA Ratio

Summary
Quake Summit 2010

Introduction
Motivation
Bridge columns are subjected to combined actions of
axial, shear and flexure forces due to structural and
geometrical constraints (skewed, curved etc.) and the
multi-directional earthquake input motions.
Axial load variation can directly impact the ultimate
capacity, stiffness and hysteretic behavior of shear and
flexure responses.
Accurate seismic demand assessment of bridges needs
to realistically account for combined actions.

Objectives
An efficient analytical scheme considering axial-shearflexural interaction
Shear and flexural hysteretic models reflecting the
effects of axial load variation and accumulated material
damage (e.g. strength deterioration, stiffness degrading,
and pinching behavior)

Quake Summit 2010

Axial-Shear-Flexural Interaction

Significance of Non-linear Shear-Flexural Interaction


(Ozcebe and Saatcioglu 1989)
Shear displacement can be significant -- even if a RC member is not
governed by shear failure (as is the case in most of RC columns).
Inelastic shear behavior -- RC members with higher shear strength
than flexural strength do not guarantee an elastic behavior in shear
deformation.

Coupling of Axial-Shear-Flexural Responses


(ElMandooh and Ghobarah 2003)
Dynamic variation of axial force -- will cause significant change in
the lateral hysteretic moment-curvature relationship and
consequently the overall structural behavior in RC columns.

Quake Summit 2010

Axial-Shear-Flexure Interaction at Material Level

MCFT

Modified Compression Field Theory


(Vecchio and Collins 1986)

fy
fc1

vxy

fx

fsx

vcxy
fsy

f cr
f c1 1 200
1

2
2
2
f c 2 f c 2,max 2 ' '
c c

f sx Es x f y , x
f sy Es y f y , y

fcx

fc2

fcy

Equilibrium

Strain Compatibility

Constitutive Law

Quake Summit 2010

Derivation of Flexural and Shear Primary Curves

Discretize RC member into small pieces. For each piece of RC element,


estimate M- and - relationship by Modified Compression Field Theory
(MCFT, Vecchio and Collins 1986).
M

M=V*h

DECK
F-UEL

S-UEL

Integrate curvature and shear


strain to get displacement.

h *

F-UEL

FNDN

SSI spring

Input the V-s and M- curve to


Shear-UEL & Flexural-UEL.

V
S-UEL

Flexural deformation Shear deformation

= { i*dy*yi + i*dy }

Rigid Column

S-UEL

dy

MCFT

yi

M
F-UEL

Quake Summit 2010

70

0.06

70
60

0.06
0.055

60
50
50
40
40
30
30
20

total displ.

20
10
10
0

M/V ratio

shear
displ.
total
displ.
flexural
displ.
shear displ.

flexural displ.
5
10
15
Total5Displacement10
(mm)
15
Total Displacement (mm)

300

90

300

90

250

VV-23

200

Moment
(kN-m)
Moment
(kN-m)

Shear
(kN)(kN)
Shear

0.025
0.02

Larger moment capacity


Smaller shear capacity

0
5
10
15
0.02Maximum
moment
capacity is
Total
Displ.
(mm)
0
5
10
15
Total Displ. (mm)
bounded
by pure bending case

M- 1

VV-12

200

VV-3

150

VV-45

150

VV-56

100

VV-67

100

VV-78

50

VV-89

50
0

0.03
0.025

V- 1

250

Sections with different M/V ratio


0.055
0.05
(level of shear-flexural interaction)
0.05
0.045
demonstrate different mechanical
0.045
0.04
properties and behaviors
0.04
0.035
0.035Section with higher M/V ratio:
0.03

Shear-to-Total
Displ.
Ratio
Shear-to-Total
Displ.
Ratio

1.4 M/V =0.076(m)


1.4 1 M/V =0.076(m)
M/V =0.229(m)
1.2 1
2
M/V
=0.229(m)
1.2
M/V =0.381(m)
1 23
M/V =0.381(m)
M/V =0.534(m)
1
3
4
M/V =0.534(m)
0.8
M/V =0.686(m)
4
5
0.8
M/V =0.686(m)
M/V =0.838(m)
0.6
5
6
M/V =0.838(m)
0.6
M/V =0.991(m)
6
0.4
7
M/V =0.991(m)
M/V =1.143(m)
0.4
7
8
0.2
M/VM/V
=1.143(m)
=1.296(m)
89
0.2
M/V =1.296(m)
0
0
0.59
1
1.5
2
0
M/V
ratio
0
0.5
1
1.5
2

Shear
(kN)(kN)
Shear

Column
Height
(m) (m)
Column
Height

Shear-Flexure Interaction (SFI) under Constant Axial Load

4
6
8
Shear
Strain
(mm/m)
4
6
8

Shear Strain (mm/m)

10

10

V- 9

12

12

MM-12

60

MM-23

60

MM-34

MM-45
MM-67

30

M=V*h

dy

MM-78

yi

MM-56

30

MM-89
0

10
15
20
Curvature
(rad/km)
10
15
20

Curvature (rad/km)

25

25

M-9

M
30

30

Quake Summit 2010

Improved Hysteretic Rules for Shear & Flexural Springs


Unloading & reloading stiffness depend on:

Xu and Zhang (2010 ), EESD

Structural characteristics
Damage in the column

Primary curve (Kelastic, Crack, & Yield)


Cracked? Yielded?
Shear force level
Max ductility experienced
Loading cycles at max ductility level
Axial load ratio

Loading history
Varying during earthquake !!
Shear Force

Hysteretic Loop

25

20

15

Vy

I maximum peak (m,Vm)


hardening reference point
(m,Vm)

G
F

10

V
O

Shear Force

previous peak (p,Vp)


pinching reference point (p,Vp)

Vcr

-10

D
-15

-20

-25
-80

U
N

-5

Shear Displacement

R
-60

-40

-20

0
Shear Displacement

20

40

60

80

(Ozcebe and Saatcioglu,1989)


Quake Summit 2010

Outline
Introduction

Motivation & Objectives


Shear-Flexure Interaction Under Constant Axial Load

Proposed Axial-Shear-Flexure Interaction (ASFI) Scheme

Primary Curves and Hysteretic Models Considering Combined Actions


Generation of Primary Curve Family
Stress Level Index & Two-stage Loading Approach

Model Verification

Static Cyclic Tests


Comparison with Fiber Section Model under Seismic Loadings
Limitations and Known Issues

Factors Affecting ASFI & Effects on Bridge Responses

Arrival Time of Vertical Ground Motion


Vertical-to-Horizontal PGA Ratio

Summary
Quake Summit 2010

Effects of Axial Load Variation on Total Primary Curves

PEER-93

100

PEER-121

700
600

80

PEER-122

250

200

P/P0=-5%(T)

40

P/P0=-2%(T)

P/P0= 5%(C)
P/P0=20%(C)
10

20
30
Column Tip Drift (mm)

Kunnath et al.
H/D=4.5

300

P/P0=-5%(T)
P/P0=-2%(T)
P/P0= 0 (-)
P/P0= 5%(C)
P/P0=10%(C)

100

P/P0=10%(C)
0

400

200

P/P0= 0 (-)
20

40

Shear (kN)

60

Shear (kN)

Shear (kN)

500

10
15
Column Tip Drift (mm)

Calderone-328
H/D=3.0

20

P/P0=-5%(T)
P/P0=-2%(T)
P/P0= 0 (-)
P/P0= 5%(C)
P/P0=10%(C)

100

50

P/P0=20%(C)
0

150

25

P/P0=20%(C)
0

50
100
Column Tip Drift (mm)

150

Calderone-828
H/D=8.0

Ultimate capacity and stiffness increase with compressive axial load level.
Yielding displacement is almost fixed, regardless of applied axial load.
Cracking point is getting smaller as axial force decreasing, implying the
column being relatively easy to be cracked.
Quake Summit 2010

10

Normalization of Primary Curves


Vcr(P/P0=n%) / Vy (P/P0=5%C)

0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-10

2
Vy (P/P0=n%) / Vy (P/P0=5%C)

Y = 0.68*(X+0.25)2+0.01

10
20
30
P/P0 (%), Compression is "+".

1.5
1
0.5

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2

2.5

Y =-2.15*(X-0.60)2+1.65

0
-10

Y = 1.47*(X+0.25)2+0.02

0
-10

40

Vu(P/P0=n%) / Vy (P/P0=5%C)

(P/P =n%) / (P/P =5%C)


cr
0
y
0

0.5

10
20
30
P/P0 (%), Compression is "+".

40

(c) yield load

10
20
30
P/P0 (%), Compression is "+".

40

Y =-3.20*(X-0.60)2+2.32

2
1.5
1
0.5
0
-10

10
20
30
P/P0 (%), Compression is "+".

40

(d) ultimate capacity

cr ( P / P0 n%)
P
0.68*( 0.25) 2 0.01
y ( P / P0 5%)
P0

Vcr ( P / P0 n%)
P
1.47 *( 0.25) 2 0.02
Vy ( P / P0 5%)
P0

Vy ( P / P0 n%)

Vu ( P / P0 n%)
P
3.20*( 0.6) 2 2.32
Vy ( P / P0 5%)
P0

Vy ( P / P0 5%)

2.15*(

P
0.6) 2 1.65
P0

Quake Summit 2010

11

Generation of Primary Curve Family


Objective: Generating the primary curves related to various axial load levels
from a given primary curve subject to an initial axial load
loading

I% critical points, on initial primary curve


I% initial primary curve (given)
a

n% primary curve (predicted)

DL def .level

(Ii%)

SL stress.level

a
b

(i) 0crack: straight line

b
deflection
i

ii

iii

iv

V(iI)%
VcrI %

(ni%) DL * crn %
V(ni )% SL *Vcrn %

(ii) crackyield: interpolation


DL def . level

n% critical points, predicted from equations

I%
cr

SL stress level

(Iii%) crI %
*y crI %

V( iiI %) VcrI %
VyI % VcrI %

(nii%) DL * (*y crn % ) crn %


V(nii%) SL * (Vyn % Vcrn % ) Vcrn %

(iv) ultimatefailure: constant residual strength ratio


ductility unchanged

n%
( iv )

RSR residual strength ratio


V(niv%) RSR *Vun %

I%
( iv )

V(ivI %)
VuI %

(iii) yieldultimate: interpolation


ductility unchanged
SL stress level

(niii%) (Iiii%)

V(iiiI %) VyI %
VuI % VyI %

V(niii%) SL *(Vun % Vyn % ) Vyn %

Quake Summit 2010

12

Stress Level Index & Two-stage Loading Approach


Assumption:
Effective stress level of a loaded column at
fixed ductility is independent of axial load.

Effective Lateral Load, Veff

c
Stress Level Index

Lateral Capacity at max , Vm d


Equivalent
stress level

10%
Vm10%
Vy10%
Veff10%

Equivalent
stress level

Vm0%
Vy0%
Veff0%

0%

c
y

max

max

Keep , change N: 10% -5%

-5%

Vm5%
Vy5%
Veff5%

c
y

d
max

Keep N, change : 1 2

Veff10%

10%

Veff10%

10%

Veff5%

-5%

Veff5%

-5%

c
d

c
1

max

Quake Summit 2010

13

Outline
Introduction

Motivation & Objectives


Shear-Flexure Interaction Under Constant Axial Load

Proposed Axial-Shear-Flexure Interaction (ASFI) Scheme

Primary Curves and Hysteretic Models Considering Combined Actions


Generation of Primary Curve Family
Stress Level Index & Two-stage Loading Approach

Model Verification

Static Cyclic Tests


Comparison with Fiber Section Model under Seismic Loadings
Limitations and Known Issues

Factors Affecting ASFI & Effects on Bridge Responses

Arrival Time of Vertical Ground Motion


Vertical-to-Horizontal PGA Ratio

Summary
Quake Summit 2010

14

Cyclic Test: Experimental Program TP031 ~ TP034


TP-033

TP-034

Height
Diameter

Quake Summit 2010

15

Verification of Primary Curve Prediction


Hysteretic Loop

200
150

TP-031

Given the primary curve of TP032, predicts the response of TP031.


Hysteretic Loop

50
200

0
-50

100

-100
-150
-200
-80

TP-031
Sakai and Kawashima
H/D=3.375

150

-60

-40

-20
0
20
Displacement (mm)

Given the primary curve of TP031, predicts the response of TP032.

Shear Force (kN)

Shear Force (kN)

100

TP-032
Sakai and Kawashima
H/D=3.375

50
Analytical
Experimental
0

40

60

80

-50

TP-032
-100
-150
-200
-80

Analytical
Experimental
-60

-40

-20
0
20
Displacement (mm)

40

60

Quake Summit 2010

80

16

Verification of Mapping between Different Axial Load Level


Hysteretic Loop

200
150

50

TP-031

Axial load
increasing

150

-50

100
Axial load decreasing

-100
-150
-200
-80

Hysteretic Loop

200

-60

-40

-20
0
20
Displacement (mm)

Shear Force (kN)

Shear Force (kN)

100

TP-034

TP-033
Sakai and Kawashima
H/D=3.375

Axial load
increasing
TP-034
Sakai and Kawashima
H/D=3.375

50
Analytical
Experimental
0

40

60

80

-50

TP-032
-100

TP-033

Axial load decreasing

-150
-200
-80

Analytical
Experimental
-60

-40

-20
0
20
Displacement (mm)

40

60

80

Quake Summit 2010

17

Dynamic Validation with Fiber Section Model


ABAQUS ASFI Model

100

Shear (kN)

50
0
-50

Axial Force (kN)

1000
-100
500

OpenSees w/ V-EQ
OpenSees w/o V-EQ
ABAQUS w/ V-EQ
ABAQUS w/o V-EQ

-150
0
-200
-500

-20
2

-10
6

0
10
10
Tip Displ. (mm)

200

Tip Displ. (mm)

Considering only the SFI


can yield good prediction on
the displacement demand.

150

Shear (kN)

Vibration frequencies of the


two models agree with each
other indicating reasonable
prediction on the tangent
stiffness of the proposed
ASFI model.

OpenSees Fiber Model

200

Proposed ASFI model in


general produces larger
displacement demand than
the fiber section model.

-200

4
6
Time (s)

10

20

30

20
0
-20
0

4
6
Time (s)

Quake Summit 2010

10

18

Limitations and Known Issues


Estimation on post-peak stiffness of primary curve family
may not be adequate.
May converge at an incorrect solution for systems with
yielding platform.
May converge at an inconsistent deformed configuration
for softening systems.
Use of full stiffness matrix can somehow improve the
above-mentioned convergence issues, however, it is an
asymmetric matrix which offsets most of the advantages.
V

Quake Summit 2010

19

Outline
Introduction

Motivation & Objectives


Shear-Flexure Interaction Under Constant Axial Load

Proposed Axial-Shear-Flexure Interaction (ASFI) Scheme

Primary Curves and Hysteretic Models Considering Combined Actions


Generation of Primary Curve Family
Stress Level Index & Two-stage Loading Approach

Model Verification

Static Cyclic Tests


Comparison with Fiber Section Model under Seismic Loadings
Limitations and Known Issues

Factors Affecting ASFI & Effects on Bridge Responses

Arrival Time of Vertical Ground Motion


Vertical-to-Horizontal PGA Ratio

Summary
Quake Summit 2010

20

Factors Affecting ASFI: Arrival Time of Vertical Ground Motion

0.02

w /o V-EQ
no shift on V-EQ

0
-0.4s -0.3s -0.2s -0.1s

0
V

4
6
Time (s)

(a) Horizontal:
Vertical:

10

WN22 (Tp=0.488s);
WN22 (Tp=0.138s)

8
6
4

(b) Horizontal:
Vertical:

w /o V-EQ

0.5352(g)
0.4521(g)

no shift on V-EQ

4
6
Time (s)

0.0 0.1s 0.2s 0.3s 0.4s

10

x 10

8
6
4
2

10

WN22 (Tp=0.488s);
NO4 (Tp=0.322s)

x 10

no shift on V-EQ
0
-0.4s -0.3s -0.2s -0.1s 0.0 0.1s 0.2s 0.3s 0.4s

0.08

w /o V-EQ

tpeak
- tpeak
V
H

no shift on V-EQ
0
-0.4s -0.3s -0.2s -0.1s 0.0 0.1s 0.2s 0.3s 0.4s

tpeak
- tpeak
V
H

0
-0.5

w /o V-EQ

x 10

0
-0.4s -0.3s -0.2s -0.1s

0.5

10

Max Base Moment (N-m)

tpeak
- tpeak
V
H

w /o V-EQ
no shift on V-EQ

0
-0.4s -0.3s -0.2s -0.1s

0.0 0.1s 0.2s 0.3s 0.4s

tpeak
- tpeak
V
H

(a) H: WN22; V: WN22

Max Column Drift (m)

Max Base Moment (N-m)

-0.4432(g)

0.0 0.1s 0.2s 0.3s 0.4s

x 10

tpeak
- tpeak
V
H

H
-0.5

Acceleration (g)

0.04

Max Base Shear (N)

0.4521(g)

0.06

Max Base Shear (N)

Acceleration (g)

0.5

0.08
Max Column Drift (m)

No significant correlation is found.

0.06
0.04
0.02

w /o V-EQ

no shift on V-EQ
0
-0.4s -0.3s -0.2s -0.1s 0.0 0.1s 0.2s 0.3s 0.4s
tpeak
- tpeak
V
H

(b) H: WN22; V: NO4

Quake Summit 2010

21

Factors Affecting ASFI: Vertical-to-Horizontal PGA Ratio

Column of Bridge#4 (H/D=2.5, P/P0=15%)


subject to WN22 (T&V)
Max

0
-1
0.0

0.2

0.4
0.6
PGA V / PGA H

(a) Horizontal:
Vertical:

0.8

1.0

WN22 (Tp=0.488s);
WN22 (Tp=0.138s)

Max
min

1
0
-1
0.0

0.2

0.4
0.6
PGA V / PGA H

(b) Horizontal:
Vertical:

0.4
0.6
PGA V / PGA H

0.8

0.8

1.0

1.0

WN22 (Tp=0.488s);
NO4 (Tp=0.322s)

0.2

0.4
0.6
PGA V / PGA H

0.8

1.0

0.8

1.0

0.8

1.0

x 10

8
6
4
2

w /o V-EQ
0.2

0.4
0.6
PGA V / PGA H

0.8

10

x 10

8
6
4
2

w /o V-EQ

0
0.0

1.0

0.2

0.4
0.6
PGA V / PGA H

0.08

0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0.0

w /o V-EQ

0
0.0

0.08

subject to WN22(T) & NO4(V)

Max Column Drift (m)

Axial Force (N), comp. is "+"

x 10

10

0
0.0

Column of Bridge#4 (H/D=2.5, P/P0=15%)


2

0.2

x 10

min

w /o V-EQ

Max Base Moment (N-m)

x 10

Max Column Drift (m)

0
0.0

Max Base Moment (N-m)

Axial Force (N), comp. is "+"

x 10

Max Base Shear (N)

No significant correlation exists with


drift demand.
tVpeak tHpeak = -0.1s

3
Max Base Shear (N)

Larger PGAV/PGAH ratio tends to have


larger influence on force demand.

w /o V-EQ
0.2

0.4
0.6
PGA V / PGA H

0.8

(a) H: WN22; V: WN22

1.0

0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0.0

w /o V-EQ
0.2

0.4
0.6
PGA V / PGA H

(b) H: WN22; V: NO4

Quake Summit 2010

22

C2@B2
-0.02
0
Column Drift (m)

0.02

0.04

0.06

Force-Displacement //Trans.

x 10

-3
-0.04

-0.02

-0.01
0
0.01
Column Drift (m)

0.02

0.03

Force v.s. total column drift (H/D=2.5)

0.04

2
0

10

10

-0.005
0
0.005
Rotation Angle @ F-UEL (rad)
6

Moment-Rotation @Trans.

x 10

4
2

10

10

10

10

10

x 10

3
2.5
2
1.5

x 10
10 0.01
8
6
4

-2
-4

1 -8
-0.025
1

3.5

2 -6

x -8
10
15 -0.01

1
6

0.5 -4
1
2
-6

-0.03

1 -2

10

1.5

-2

5Moment-Rotation
6
7
8
9
@Longi.

x 10
6

-1

0.01

Max Section Moment (N-m)

-0.04

H only

0.02

Max Section Force (N)

C2@B1
C1@B2

2.5

2 6
x 10

V+H

0.03

Max Section Moment (N-m)

-2

-0.06

Bridge #4, H/D=2.5

0.04

-0.02

-0.015 -0.01 -0.005


0
0.005
Rotation Angle @ F-UEL (rad)

4
5
6
7
Earthquake Index Number

10

Max Deck Acc. (g)

C1@B1

Shear Force (N)

Moment (N-m)

-1

Max Section Force (N)

0.02

Max Deck Acc. (g)

Shear Force (N)

-3
-0.08

H only

V+H

0.04

Force-Displacement //Longi.

x 10

Bridge #4, H/D=5.0

0.06

Moment (N-m)

Max Column Drift Ratio

Considering axial variation does not


change overall bridge responses
much.

Max Column Drift Ratio

Bridge Responses Considering ASFI

0.01

3
2
1
0

0.015

4
5
6
7
Earthquake Index Number

Quake Summit 2010

23

Summary

Axial load considerably affects the lateral responses of RC


columns.
Primary curves of the same column under different axial loads
can be predicted very well by applying the normalized primary
curve and parameterized critical points.
Mapping between loading branches corresponding to different
axial load levels is made possible by breaking the step into two
stages: constant deformation stage and constant loading stage.
Model verification shows that the proposed method is able to
capture the effects of axial load variation on the lateral responses
of RC columns.
Transient time analysis on individual bridge column and on
prototype bridge system shows that considering axial load
variation during earthquake events does not change the drift
demand significantly.

Quake Summit 2010

24

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The research presented here was funded by National


Science Foundation through the Network for Earthquake
Engineering Simulation Research Program, grant CMMI0530737, Joy Pauschke, program manager.

Thank You!
Thanks for your attention !

Quake Summit 2010

25

Analytical Models for RC Columns


Plastic Hinge Models

Elastic or rigid beam

Using equivalent springs to simulate shear


and flexural responses of columns at the
element level
Empirical and approximate
Difficult to couple together the axial, shear,
and flexural responses
Numerical instability in the adopted
hysteretic models may induce convergence
problem

Linear or Nonlinear
spring elements

y
fiber

Fiber Section Formulation


Controlling the element responses directly at
the material level
Coupling the axial-flexural interaction
Rotation of principal axes in concrete (as
large as 30) due to the existence of shear
stress is not considered

z
y

x
z

Quake Summit 2010

26

Deficiencies of Current Numerical Models


Deficiencies of Current Models
Non-linearity in shear deformation is not accounted for.
Material damage (strength deterioration and pinching) due to cyclic loading is not considered.
Axial-Shear-Flexural interaction is not captured.

(a) Nonlinear Timoshenko Beam Element

100

100

50

50

0
-50

0
-50

-100
-150
-60

(b) OpenSees Fiber Element

150

Shear (kN)

Shear (kN)

150

-100

Test TP-021
nonLinear M-
-40

-20
0
20
Displacement (mm)

40

60

-150
-60

Test TP-021
OpenSees Fiber
-40

-20
0
20
Displacement(mm)

40

Quake Summit 2010

60

27

Comparison of Primary Curve Family with Fiber Model


TP033: Axial Load= -10(-0.3%) ~ +310(+8.5%) kN
predicted by equations
25.0%

200
100

-10.0%

0
EXP

-100

0%

P/Po= 12.80%
proposed Eq's

-200
-60

-40

-20
0
20
Total Displacement (mm)

40

60

100

-10.0%

50

P/P0= 12.80%
OpenSees
0

10

20
30
Total Displacement (mm)

40

200
Lateral Load (kN)

Lateral Load (kN)

150

200
150
100
50
0

25.0%

200

10%
Lateral Load (kN)

Lateral Load (kN)

Primary Curve Family of TP-033

10
15
Total Displacement (mm)

20

150
100
50
0

5
10
Total Displacement (mm)

15

Similar trends are observed except post-yield response.


Fiber Section Model overestimates initial stiffness.
Fiber Section Model underestimates axial load effects.
Quake Summit 2010

28